A Columbian victory in the counter-revolution.

Colombian Pro-Lifers Beat Back Attempt to Legalize Abortion

In the Catholic country of Colombia, on the Catholic Feast of the Immaculate Conception, the Constitutional Court rejected an attempt to legalize abortion in a case that was meant to be a model for Latin America.
Well-funded American and European pro-abortion groups backed Colombian activist Mónica Roa in the now-familiar tyrannical strategy favored by advocates of death in so many countries: If you cannot change the law through the proper channels and democratic activism, use the courts to impose your will.

PRI Latin American Director Carlos Polo helped coordinate opposition to the lawsuit, now dismissed by a 5 to 3 (with one abstention) vote of the court. “The outcome is incredible,” he says. “Everything was against us.” Pro-lifers thought that the pro-abortion side had a majority on Colombia’s highest constitutional court (don’t they always?), and perhaps they do, but the court refused to hear Roa’s complaint due to inadequate legal arguments. Roa’s complaint was officially brought by Women’s Link Worldwide, for which she works. A second complaint, not brought by Roa, was also rejected.

“The decision is very important for us in the pro-life movement in Latin America,” Polo says. “Everyone in the pro-life movement in Latin America will feel empowered. Abortion is still a crime in Colombia, under every circumstance. No exceptions.”

Amen to that, Brother.

Roa used arguments increasingly familiar in American courts. She claimed that Colombia’s international treaty commitments required the liberalization of domestic abortion laws, which highlights once again the importance of keeping “reproductive health rights” out of international treaty language. She made it clear that she wanted abortion on demand legalized but sought specifically to create exceptions to save the life of the mother (which are never needed with today’s technology), to kill a severely disabled unborn child not expected to live long after birth, rape, and incest.

The rape and incest "exceptions" have always bothered me. Why murder a child for a crime his father committed? That sounds like Stalinism to me.

And "health of the mother"? The State should not compel anyone to be a heroine. I think it should compel any woman seeking such an exception to undergo an impartial medical exam to determine if killing her child is indeed necessary to save her life.

But what kind of mother kills her child to save herself? I wouldn't have such a woman as my wife.